Dispatches from the 10th Crusade

What’s Wrong with the World
is dedicated to the defense of
what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of
the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the
Jihad and Liberalism...read more

The usury crisis and Catholic social teaching

Paul Cella's post Biblical Solutions is especially timely not just in light of the current recession, but also because of the publication of Pope Benedict XVI's new encyclical Caritas in Veritate. I'll have more to say about CV once I've read the whole thing. In the meantime, it would be useful to issue a little primer about how Catholic social teaching applies in today's dire circumstances.

What I've seen of CV so far is quite in line with how Catholic social teaching (see here for its official "compendium") has been developing since Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum (1891). By endorsing private property and the pursuit of profit, it is compatible with some forms of capitalism and thus needs no defense around here. But it also insists on conditioning those goods by such principles as "the universal destination of goods," "solidarity," "subsidiarity," and "the preferential option for the poor." As moral injunctions for the faithful, those principles are not terribly controversial either, at least among Christians. Most of the debate about applying Church social teaching concerns the extent to which such conditioning principles call for civil legislation and regulation, especially concerning the economy. On that question, the political (and theological) Left is generally maximalist; the political (and theological) Right is generally minimalist.

As a conservative in the American sense of the term, I come down mostly with the minimalists. Thus I believe that the principle of "subsidiarity" calls for private over public solutions when the former are feasible. From a theological standpoint, though, the question whether to be a political minimalist or a political maximalist is a matter of prudential judgment, rather than doctrine, about what's "feasible." The question is essentially empirical, and boils down to how to balance, in practice, the principle of subsidiarity with the other principles "conditioning" the goods of private property and profit. Subsidiarity is generally more popular with the Right than with the Left. But for Catholics, and a fortiori everybody else, Rome generally treats the balancing act as a matter of opinion. For the social teaching of the Church is logically compatible with a rather broad range of prudential judgments about how to implement it in the concrete.

In fact, what conservative critics of the Church's social teaching often fail to realize is that, seen as a whole, it is less palatable to the Left than to the Right. Liberal Catholics generally embrace Church teachings on, e.g., the death penalty, health care, and the treatment of immigrants, and want them enshrined in secular legislation; but on abortion, euthanasia, same-sex "marriage," and other issues called "social" in American political parlance, the song changes dramatically. True, the precise converse holds among many Catholics who are politically conservative, especially in the U.S.; but in my view, the conservatives hold the theologically stronger position. As Fr. Robert Sirico of the Acton Institute notes:

It is quite a spectacle to see Catholic progressives — who in other circumstances contort themselves into exegetical pretzels when they want to undermine clear, emphatic, authoritative, and repeated magisterial prohibitions on same-sex relations, female “priests,” and contraceptive acts — morph into virtual Ultramontanists on prudential matters such as the precise level of a minimum wage.

And the same could be said, mutatis mutandis, about many other political issues, such as whether the advantages of government-run health care would outweigh the disadvantages. As I argued in this post, the trouble with the Catholic Left is that it often presents as morally binding certain political proposals which, from Rome's standpoint, are really matters of opinion, and presents as matters of opinion certain political proposals which, again from Rome's standpoint, are morally binding. So not only is the Catholic Right's general sense about Church social teaching theologically sounder than the Left's; said teaching is more easily reconciled with American "conservatism," or at least with some strains thereof, then with American "liberalism."

But in some cases, applying the Left/Right dichotomy is simply unilluminating. The "usury crisis" Paul has described is a good example. Although people can debate from now till doomsday how much state regulation of debt instruments is wise, and probably will, it cannot be denied either (a) that some degree of regulation is necessary, and (b) that the explosion of public and private debt, all slated to be repaid with interest, has been bad for everybody. Ignoring the traditional moral strictures of the Church about debt and interest fosters a systemic greed which is eventually self-defeating. We are now in a situation where bankrupt governments are shoring up bankrupt sectors of the economy with funny money that will burden the next generation and beyond with unsustainable debt service. That wouldn't have been necessary if both the private and public sectors hadn't reduced themselves to pigs feeding at the trough. Because both private and public greed have driven this crisis, it's really not a Left/Right issue. It's a rather elementary moral issue.

Comments (66)

And the same could be said, mutatis mutandis, about many other political issues, such as whether the advantages of government-run health care would outweigh the disadvantages.

The advantages of government-run health care may exceed the disadvantages, but they don't outweigh the moral issue of making doctors choose between working for the government or not working at all. In Canada, that's a real choice for doctors since the only provider in Canada is the state.

The problem comes in when their are those Catholics who would try to interpret such things as dogmatically binding and, even further, view these seemingly papal pronouncements as advocating blatant statism.

They forget all too easily that this is merely opinion and, more importantly, a largely economic matter.

It’s not really for the Church to pronounce on matters especially concerning economy especially since Christ hasn’t given the Church a special charism that would make them expert on such things. Christ had given the Church a mandate to teach and preach the Gospel, which, ultimately, revolves around the Truth of the Scriptures.

Although such things as this revolve around that Truth, for those who have the gall to utilize these as some kind of papal endorsement to corroborate their polity and even political/economic ideologies are not only largely mistakened but also delusional, to say the least.

It’s not really for the Church to pronounce on matters especially concerning economy especially since Christ hasn’t given the Church a special charism that would make them expert on such things.

Are you suggesting that no church should address such matters as usury, worker exploitation, or public debt? Or are you simply saying that the Church should not be endorsing specific political mechanisms for dealing with such morally significant issues?

Certainly, the Church should address social injustices in the world; however, I don't believe it has the competency to dictate or even recommend specific economic and/or political systems, as some Catholics seem wont to interpret these as such.

The Catholic Church should remain a beacon of Hope (as Christ I'm sure would require all Christians themselves to be) and, indeed, a voice to speak out for those oppressed and even take actions on behalf of these people; however, I believe there is a fine line between speaking/acting against injustice versus endorsing certain systems (be they political and/or economic, etc.); yet, I remain skeptical as to the validity of certain assertions made by those who tend to interpret these papal utterances as blanket endorsement for their particular system is actually being the case or even intention (however implicit) of the Holy Father or even Rome, for that matter.

They forget all too easily that this is merely opinion and, more importantly, a largely economic matter.

Oh how modern of you. Sure, there is a divorce between our souls and bodies. It leads to spiritual schizophrenia and allows us to sit on the right side of the cafeteria comfortably oblivious to our ruptured state. Safe to say Ari, you haven't read it either.

Certainly, the Church should address social injustices in the world; however, I don't believe it has the competency to dictate or even recommend specific economic and/or political systems, as some Catholics seem wont to interpret these as such.

1) So, rhetoric is fine as long as it doesn't lead to anything concrete.
2) Odd, do you extend this to matters of sexuality, family life and health care?
3) Competency I guess is the special province of technicians. How is that working out?

1) So, rhetoric is fine as long as it doesn't lead to anything concrete.
2) Odd, do you extend this to matters of sexuality, family life and health care?
3) Competency I guess is the special province of technicians. How is that working out?

Aristocles has a decent point, and you're not being entirely fair. Sexuality and family life are covered in extensive detail in scripture, giving the church a firm stance. Health care is not, especially not on matters like socialized health care.

There is an intuitive basis to think where the church should stand. If you love your neighbor, you won't be a tyrant, but will emulate Christ in imposing the least burden ("my yoke is light") on your neighbor as you possibly can. Socialized health care is an incredible financial burden on a lot of people, and decimates the economic rights of medical professionals. We can intuit from that that it is probably immoral in the eyes of God since the nature of God's rule over us is a light-handed one.

Similar to that, modern economics are extremely complicated, and I think Aristocles has a good point in that most of us are not genuinely competent to fully grok the implications of everything. That is similar to the price-knowledge problem that central planners face in economics, only applied in philosophy.

Fortunately, we are either covered by grace or we are not. If we seek to do the will of God, then we will be safe. If you want to make the general tendency in economics to be moral, then you have to make people accept the gospel first. Then, by their own will, they will start to seek out their proper role.

In fact, what conservative critics of the Church's social teaching often fail to realize is that, when seen as a whole, it is probably more unpalatable to the Left than to the Right.

Nah, both sides are going to 1) highlight the passages supportive of their outlooks and 2) squirm when their sacred cows are criticized.
And this encyclical is a slaughterhouse for both camps.

Don't expect this passage to be the basis for a cover story at National Review.

The way humanity treats the environment influences the way it treats itself, and vice versa. This invites contemporary society to a serious review of its life-style, which, in many parts of the world, is prone to hedonism and consumerism, regardless of their harmful consequences[122]. What is needed is an effective shift in mentality which can lead to the adoption of new life-styles “in which the quest for truth, beauty, goodness and communion with others for the sake of common growth are the factors which determine consumer choices, savings and investments”[123].

So, Kevin, are you really one of those rather austere dracos who would dare interpret such encyclicals with such restrictive dogmatic force (which is quite opposite to the very nature & intention of encyclicals) as some concrete endorsement for some economic/political system that Catholics must accept as particularly binding, on peril of lost of soul?

If the Church has been granted such special charism to be especially blessed to the extent of doing thus, we might as well surrender governance of all economic matters to it; heck, maybe Papa Ratzi is the one who can single-handedly solve our economic woes!

Oh wait, if such were indeed the case, I wonder why the poor state of their balance sheets which has been the case for quite a number of years.

In other words, I believe the Church has the responsibility to speak against injustice, but to actually recommend or even dictate particular systems (which I believe is not even their intention nor should it be)?

You are inviting near heresy -- not unlike that which Augustine himself opposed.

As a conservative, I love that passage you just quoted from CV. The conservatives who won't like it are those who think that an economy driven more by consumer spending and debt than by thrift, and investment in real goods, is sustainable. Which it isn't--as any paleo could tell you.

Then, you either misread the statement you quoted from me or failed to comprehend it.

Whatever the case, you are being all too unnecessarily hostile for comments that you've not only failed to interpret accordingly but, more to the point, were meant for a particular party of Catholics whose purpose has often been to utilize such papal utterances as solid endorsement from Rome for their pet political/economic system, as they have been wont to do.

Although people can debate from now till doomsday how much state regulation of debt instruments is wise, and probably will, it cannot be denied either (a) that some degree of regulation is necessary, and (b) that the explosion of public and private debt, all slated to be repaid with interest, has been bad for everybody. Ignoring the traditional moral strictures of the Church about debt and interest fosters a systemic greed which is eventually self-defeating. We are now in a situation where bankrupt governments are shoring up bankrupt sectors of the economy with funny money that will burden the next generation and beyond with unsustainable debt. That wouldn't have been necessary if both the private and public sectors hadn't reduced themselves to pigs feeding at the trough. Because both private and public greed have driven this crisis, it's really not a Left/Right issue. It's a rather elementary moral issue.

Ha! The US Government has been inflating the currency pretty much since the inception of the Federal Reserve. Let's face it...inflation benefits debtors and hurts lenders. People might not realize this explicitely, but implicitely they realize that they can borrow money today and pay it back with cheaper dollars tomorrow. Wanna get out of debt? Stop the inflation.

Mr. Weigel has weighed in on CV at NRO, and he has cast the document as being something of a mixture between "Benedictine" and "Justice and Peace" theology (talk of redistribution, etc). Weigel thinks that informed readers (those versed in "Vaticanology") will read the document in a "Gold and Red" fragmented fashion ("Gold" being the Benedict-authored text, "Red" being the J&P-authored portions), a conflict of sorts between the holy father and the "gauchiste" element in the Vatican. Is Weigel trying to get out in front of the story and be the first to frame the debate, in order to get ahead of the more liberal American Catholic media? And if so, is he doing honor, or dishonor, to the pope by positing a split personality in CV?

Ari,
This is an incredible encyclical and your initial remarks were clearly pre-baked and unduly dismissive. Were Catholics to take it to heart, the result would be far more transformative than merely installing a new economic system. Stop listening to what others are saying (including me) and read it yourself!

And if so, is he doing honor, or dishonor, to the pope by positing a split personality in CV?

I think you know the answer and it is a shame he would do so. Weigel hasn't been able to recover from his ill-conceived attempt to get JPII to bless the Iraq War and is now left blaming hooded bogeymen in the Vatican for preventing the Church from signing on to his political agenda.

Brings back memories of when Father Neuhaus (God bless his soul)patronizingly derided an offending part of Centesimus annus as "wandering into the text"

2. Charity is at the heart of the Church's social doctrine. Every responsibility and every commitment spelt out by that doctrine is derived from charity which, according to the teaching of Jesus, is the synthesis of the entire Law (cf. Mt 22:36- 40). It gives real substance to the personal relationship with God and with neighbour; it is the principle not only of micro-relationships (with friends, with family members or within small groups) but also of macro-relationships (social, economic and political ones). For the Church, instructed by the Gospel, charity is everything because, as Saint John teaches (cf. 1 Jn 4:8, 16) and as I recalled in my first Encyclical Letter, “God is love” (Deus Caritas Est): everything has its origin in God's love, everything is shaped by it, everything is directed towards it. Love is God's greatest gift to humanity, it is his promise and our hope.

I am aware of the ways in which charity has been and continues to be misconstrued and emptied of meaning, with the consequent risk of being misinterpreted, detached from ethical living and, in any event, undervalued. In the social, juridical, cultural, political and economic fields — the contexts, in other words, that are most exposed to this danger — it is easily dismissed as irrelevant for interpreting and giving direction to moral responsibility. Hence the need to link charity with truth not only in the sequence, pointed out by Saint Paul, of veritas in caritate (Eph 4:15), but also in the inverse and complementary sequence of caritas in veritate. Truth needs to be sought, found and expressed within the “economy” of charity, but charity in its turn needs to be understood, confirmed and practised in the light of truth. In this way, not only do we do a service to charity enlightened by truth, but we also help give credibility to truth, demonstrating its persuasive and authenticating power in the practical setting of social living. This is a matter of no small account today, in a social and cultural context which relativizes truth, often paying little heed to it and showing increasing reluctance to acknowledge its existence.

3. Through this close link with truth, charity can be recognized as an authentic expression of humanity and as an element of fundamental importance in human relations, including those of a public nature. Only in truth does charity shine forth, only in truth can charity be authentically lived. Truth is the light that gives meaning and value to charity. That light is both the light of reason and the light of faith, through which the intellect attains to the natural and supernatural truth of charity: it grasps its meaning as gift, acceptance, and communion. Without truth, charity degenerates into sentimentality. Love becomes an empty shell, to be filled in an arbitrary way. In a culture without truth, this is the fatal risk facing love. It falls prey to contingent subjective emotions and opinions, the word “love” is abused and distorted, to the point where it comes to mean the opposite. Truth frees charity from the constraints of an emotionalism that deprives it of relational and social content, and of a fideism that deprives it of human and universal breathing-space. In the truth, charity reflects the personal yet public dimension of faith in the God of the Bible, who is both Agápe and Lógos: Charity and Truth, Love and Word.

4. Because it is filled with truth, charity can be understood in the abundance of its values, it can be shared and communicated. Truth, in fact, is lógos which creates diá-logos, and hence communication and communion. Truth, by enabling men and women to let go of their subjective opinions and impressions, allows them to move beyond cultural and historical limitations and to come together in the assessment of the value and substance of things. Truth opens and unites our minds in the lógos of love: this is the Christian proclamation and testimony of charity. In the present social and cultural context, where there is a widespread tendency to relativize truth, practising charity in truth helps people to understand that adhering to the values of Christianity is not merely useful but essential for building a good society and for true integral human development. A Christianity of charity without truth would be more or less interchangeable with a pool of good sentiments, helpful for social cohesion, but of little relevance. In other words, there would no longer be any real place for God in the world. Without truth, charity is confined to a narrow field devoid of relations. It is excluded from the plans and processes of promoting human development of universal range, in dialogue between knowledge and praxis.

5. Charity is love received and given. It is “grace” (cháris). Its source is the wellspring of the Father's love for the Son, in the Holy Spirit. Love comes down to us from the Son. It is creative love, through which we have our being; it is redemptive love, through which we are recreated. Love is revealed and made present by Christ (cf. Jn 13:1) and “poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit” (Rom 5:5). As the objects of God's love, men and women become subjects of charity, they are called to make themselves instruments of grace, so as to pour forth God's charity and to weave networks of charity.

This dynamic of charity received and given is what gives rise to the Church's social teaching, which is caritas in veritate in re sociali: the proclamation of the truth of Christ's love in society. This doctrine is a service to charity, but its locus is truth. Truth preserves and expresses charity's power to liberate in the ever-changing events of history. It is at the same time the truth of faith and of reason, both in the distinction and also in the convergence of those two cognitive fields. Development, social well-being, the search for a satisfactory solution to the grave socio-economic problems besetting humanity, all need this truth. What they need even more is that this truth should be loved and demonstrated. Without truth, without trust and love for what is true, there is no social conscience and responsibility, and social action ends up serving private interests and the logic of power, resulting in social fragmentation, especially in a globalized society at difficult times like the present.

(my emphasis -- those bolded remarks gets to the heart of the matter, in my albeit humble opinion.)

Having read Weigel's article, I'd say that he's doing what most Catholic intellectuals do when a papal encyclical comes out: trying to interpret it in a way most consonant with his own position. In practice, that often means distinguishing between the binding and the optional parts of the document. That isn't always bad and, in fact, is often necessary. But in this case, Weigel's way of doing it is to suggest that the parts of CV he likes come from the Pope himself, and the parts he dislikes come merely from the gauchiste party in the Vatican. I dislike that methodology of argument. It's self-serving and polemical. Indeed it's ultimately irrelevant, since the Pope signed off on the whole document.

It would be better to argue that the Pope is wrong on certain practical specifics, rather than pretend that the Pope didn't really mean everything he just published. But guys like Weigel are usually most reluctant to do that. I think it's because they like their Roman-insider status too much to jeopardize it by total and consistent openness. Needless to say, I have no such standing to jeopardize, even though I agree with Weigel about most things.

It would be better to argue that the Pope is wrong on certain practical specifics,

Can you do that and still be a good Catholic? About an encyclical, yet? If so, cool, but...

Perhaps Weigel doesn't want to admit that Benedict himself accepts some of the "J & P" approach. Being a Protestant, I can happily accept that and still oppose "J & P" wholeheartedly with an easy conscience, but that option may not be fully open to Weigel. "Redistribution" talk is highly problematic. In terms of justice. Not to mention peace. Not to mention actually helping the poor.

Infallibility only applies under two conditions: (a) when a pope or the worldwide college of bishops formally defines a teaching on faith or morals as a dogma; (b) when such agents reiterate a teaching on faith or morals which has been taught with diachronic episcopal consensus for as long as we have records. Although some principles of Catholic social teaching meet one or both criteria---such as that on usury--none of the distinctive developments in Catholic social teaching seen over the past century or so meet either criterion. Hence, while Catholics are still obliged to give "religious assent" to the general body of said teaching, there is plenty of room for dissent about practical specifics. "Redistribution" is a good example.

Simply as a matter of Christian ethics, we are obliged to provide what we can for those who cannot provide for themselves a standard of living consistent with human dignity. Hence, the Church teaches that the well-off must somehow "redistribute" surplus to the poor. That teaching has been infallibly set forth, even in Scripture, and is thus irreformable. But the question what mechanism for doing that is best is pretty open from a doctrinal standpoint. Domestically, one can and should question whether welfare for able-bodied people is a fair or effective way to do it. Abroad, forking over "development aid" to Third-World governments often ends up benefiting Swiss banks more than the indigenous poor. Granting liberal trade terms is often a good way to do it, because it draws poor countries into a circle of economic development that produces real wealth for them. But seeking the most effective "ways" to "redistribute" wealth is a prudential matter. Magisterial views about which ways are most effective can be quite wrong. So, one is not a bad Catholic just for questioning or even rejecting such views.

Can you do that and still be a good Catholic? About an encyclical, yet?

It's only within Kevin's warped mind where Catholics are bound to suffer the pains of Hell should they disagree with any particular encyclical.

Matters concerning Moral & Faith is entirely different matter altogether; yet, these would not even be declared, most especially, in encyclicals but couched within more formal declarations dressed in highly ornate terms, using the kind of language that makes clear that the pope was speaking with his supreme authority (after the Popes who didst make same in the early church) and that he’s intending to settle a matter concerning Faith & Morals for all the Faithful, where there is to be no more dispute (after the manner of Leo).

Now, to be frank, that’s an extremely rare thing for Popes to do with respect to making such doctrinal pronouncements.

It's only within Kevin's warped mind where Catholics are bound to suffer the pains of Hell should they disagree with any particular encyclical.

Wow, I never said that, but obviously you don't like this encyclical since it is only about economics a field, like war and diplomacy, which is beyond the ken of priests.

Both sides of the cafeteria are dutifully parroting the lines from their preferred partisan interpreters. Weigel has assured conservatives that they can disregard anything that reeks of God forbid, Justice and Peace, while Reese has told liberals that B16 is farther to the Left than Obama, and who knows, maybe it's o.k. to go to Mass again.

Thinking with the Church is too demanding. Better to stay safely ensconced with the worldly wisdom of contemporary philosophes and easy to utter slogans. What will drive both Left and Right crazy is B16's integration of what were once called "life issues" with economic policies;

One of the most striking aspects of development in the present day is the important question of respect for life, which cannot in any way be detached from questions concerning the development of peoples. It is an aspect which has acquired increasing prominence in recent times, obliging us to broaden our concept of poverty[66] and underdevelopment to include questions connected with the acceptance of life, especially in cases where it is impeded in a variety of ways...By cultivating openness to life, wealthy peoples can better understand the needs of poor ones, they can avoid employing huge economic and intellectual resources to satisfy the selfish desires of their own citizens, and instead, they can promote virtuous action within the perspective of production that is morally sound and marked by solidarity, respecting the fundamental right to life of every people and every individual.

You are a welcome addition to the blog. You appear to be in possession of an unflagging equanimity, and that is greatly appreciated.

Kevin and Ari,

You two are much better than to go at each other so : ) I'm convinced of it. As an aside, in my short time here it has seemed as though other commentators have been keen to cast you two into the same cell. If they did so, I think that they would get more of a fight than they imagine.

As an aside, in my short time here it has seemed as though other commentators have been keen to cast you two into the same cell. If they did so, I think that they would get more of a fight than they imagine.

Just like More & Luther; it is more often the case that the most fierce opponents are those who are essentially the most alike.

He is correct as he notices that the document bears the marks of diversity in authorship. This is particularly apparent to those who pay close attention to the writings of Josef Ratzinger. So yes, there are several "voices" represented in CV. Even if these voices are in some sense competing voices, it is not necessary to conclude that they represent are irreconcilable views, and even if Mr. Weigel concludes that they do, I don't see the fact demonstrable from the text of CV alone--and that seems to me to be what is most important. To my way of thinking, it merely means that the pope has seen fit to allow some diversity into the document. This demonstrates the pope's humility, and I think also his wisdom. Contra Mr. Weigel's considered and thoughtful advice, I must try to read the document as one thing, as a whole. I too notice the marks of "Benedictine" thought as standing out from other portions of the document that bear traces of having been produced in committee, perhaps by those who have a loyalty to viewpoints which diverge from those of the pope. But I think it fair to say that the holy father wants the document to be read as one thing. I wish that Mr. Weigel would bring his considerable talents to bear on helping us all reconcile the various elements of the work, but in lieu of such assistance from him, I'll have to fall back on my own critical resources, such as they are.

Dr. Liccione, this assessment of yours I agree with, and I agree with the commenter who spoke to the aequanimity of your mind. Carry on, sir.

Thus I believe that the principle of "subsidiarity" calls for private over public solutions when the former are feasible. From a theological standpoint, though, the question whether to be a political minimalist or a political maximalist is a matter of prudential judgment, rather than doctrine, about what's "feasible." The question is essentially empirical, and boils down to how to balance, in practice, the principle of subsidiarity with the other principles "conditioning" the goods of private property and profit. Subsidiarity is generally more popular with the Right than with the Left. But for Catholics, and a fortiori everybody else, Rome generally treats the balancing act as a matter of opinion. For the social teaching of the Church is logically compatible with a rather broad range of prudential judgments about how to implement it in the concrete.

I too notice the marks of "Benedictine" thought as standing out from other portions of the document that bear traces of having been produced in committee, perhaps by those who have a loyalty to viewpoints which diverge from those of the pope.

Any examples? To me the document is very consistent with the Communio school which Ratzinger is a long time member and now forms his "kitchen cabinet". I hear the voices of Guardini, Guissani and in the spirit of ecumenism, even that of George P. Grant, but nothing suggesting a divergence from Ratzinger's life-long themes that predate the Second Council.

Well, I'm trying to give GW the benefit of the doubt--supposing he's correct, to some degree? What then? I still read CV as one thing. For my part, I would have simply said that I think I might pick out at elast some of the parts written specifically by Josef Ratzinger, and honestly I was having such thoughts well before I turned over to NRO to find the Weigel editorial. But perhaps this is a defect in me--perhaps my knowledge of the pope's writing is still too limited to warrant this sort of judgement. Otherwise, I've no desire to pursue the sort of parsing that GW suggests I pursue.

Byronic, I know you accept the encyclical as a whole and appreciate your giving Weigel the benefit of doubt, but think your own insights more valuable. His seem ideological and prepared in advance. He chose the Vatican short-hand from the Cold War of Red vs Gold, but he should know the latter was used disparagingly by JPII to refer to Western materialism.

There do appear to be stylistic differences and they could be due to translation problems. It will be interesting to hear from Ratzinger's friends and rivals in the days ahead and I especially look forward to Sandro Magister and Lorenzo Albacete.

All in all though, I think CV is the soundtrack for the future and just wish it was set to music.

Not sure you want to make that argument.What does Scripture say about abortion and what does it say about the rich man?

Jeremiah 1:5 has some deep implications about abortion. With regard to the rich, it does not specifically speak against them, only saying that it is difficult for them to be saved because of what real wealth can do to them.

Do you accept the Gospels and if so, do you think our economic policies and practices are moral choices?

Nobody had firmer anti-communist credentials than John Paul II. Together with Ronald Reagan, he was probably the person most responsible for accelerating the collapse of the Soviet Union. That's why the KGB had tried to kill him. He even put a damper on the Marxist "liberation theology" of certain Latin-American theologians. Yet he held and taught precisely the social doctrine you reject as insufficiently anti-communist. So I just don't get your hostility.

The ones whom this encyclical will bug the most are the ideologues of both right and left -- those who think there's just Marx and Mises and nothing in between. The bits I've read that can be perceived as 'anti-capitalist' seem to be aimed at something like Randianism. Which is a good thing, as Ayn Rand has been getting too damned much positive press from American conservatives lately. Seems like every other talk show host is wetting his pants over Atlas Shrugged. If the Pope's encyclical helps smother this baby in its cradle, then God bless it.

I'll leave the argument for my position to current and past pontiffs who themselves didst say (courtesy of zippy's most staunch debating opponent, of course):

From Pius XI:

"...the Church holds that it is unlawful for her to mix without cause in these temporal concerns; however, she can in no wise renounce the duty God entrusted to her to interpose her authority, not of course in matters of technique for which she is neither suitably equipped nor endowed by office, but in all things that are connected with the moral law."

From Leo XIII:

"If I were to pronounce on any single matter of a prevailing economic problem, I should be interfering with the freedom of men to work out their own affairs. Certain cases must be solved in the domain of facts, case by case as they occur."

From even Benedict XVI himself:

"The Church does not have technical solutions to offer and does not claim to interfere in any way in the politics of States." (CV 9)

So, will you be assuming the powers ex cathedra and excommunicating the Pontiffs as heretics who have actually submitted comments counter your own?

Suffice it to say (yet again), those who would foolishly interpret these encyclicals as actual endorsement for their pet political/economic system are not only remarkably mistakened but, more to the point, deviously aim to utilize the wise words of the Church in order to promote their own ulterior agenda rather than promote Christ's mission here on earth.

The bits I've read that can be perceived as 'anti-capitalist' seem to be aimed at something like Randianism.

Precisely. And that's is a theme we have seen for a while in the social encyclicals--nothing new here, although perhaps a new emphasis.

George R,

I hope that you will take notice of this reasoning.

Returning now to the initial question: can it perhaps be said that, after the failure of Communism, capitalism is the victorious social system, and that capitalism should be the goal of the countries now making efforts to rebuild their economy and society? Is this the model which ought to be proposed to the countries of the Third World which are searching for the path to true economic and civil progress?

The answer is obviously complex. If by "capitalism" is meant an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a "business economy", "market economy" or simply "free economy". But if by "capitalism" is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical and religious, then the reply is certainly negative.

The Marxist solution has failed, but the realities of marginalization and exploitation remain in the world, especially the Third World, as does the reality of human alienation, especially in the more advanced countries. Against these phenomena the Church strongly raises her voice. Vast multitudes are still living in conditions of great material and moral poverty. The collapse of the Communist system in so many countries certainly removes an obstacle to facing these problems in an appropriate and realistic way, but it is not enough to bring about their solution. Indeed, there is a risk that a radical capitalistic ideology could spread which refuses even to consider these problems, in the a priori belief that any attempt to solve them is doomed to failure, and which blindly entrusts their solution to the free development of market forces. - JPII, Centesimus annus, 42

Mike T,
As your reply suggests, The Church has as much of an obligation and Scriptural foundation to address economic issues as she does on matters centered on family life and sexual ethics. A very noteworthy aspect of CV is the explicit link B16 makes between our current economics and the culture of death.

If you accept the primacy of the Gospels over the logic of the market this encyclical is for you and applying it will purify an economic system poisoned by selfishness.

So, will you be assuming the powers ex cathedra and excommunicating the Pontiffs as heretics...

Ari,
As one fisheater to another, stop flailing this red herring around the deck. Can you quote anyone who has said CV calls for an economic system, a 5 year Plan, or 12 point Program? CV is far more radical than any of that. The Church does not seek an administrative role, but instead reminds us technique must be subordinate to the Spirit and that how we arrange and conduct our economic affairs or statecraft are not mere matter matters of technical skill, or even simply moral matters, but are at their very root religious questions. Any polity or socio-economic structure that claims itself independent of God or ethically neutral in its processes is going to create untold suffering and inequities.

I’m going to assume that the the sub-text to your comments is not a discomfort with what B16 has written, and that you are not reaching for the old, discredited formulation made famous once by Gary Wills when he tarnished the cover of the old National Review with; Mater Si, Magister No. It has become the rallying cry of dissenters ever since. I hope that is not the case with you, though your reaction is quite confusing.

At the time of Humanae Vitae we were regaled with demographic tables and charts predicting an over-populated and starving Europe. 40 years later, the predictions of the population growth experts are brutally mocked by reality and shrivel before the prophetic nature of that encyclical. When JP II stood against the Iraq War, we were warned of imminent danger from a formidable stockpile of weaponry and the “cakewalk” that awaited our forces of liberation. Six years later the immorality and insanity that informs the “doctrine of preemptive war” stand as a testament to the Pontiff who opposed it and a damning indictment of those who conceived it. Whither the technical competence? CV is far more radical in its implications than

CV is the latest attempt to rescue modern man from his technologically sophisticated and self-absorbed folly of building neutral systems unfettered by Faith. It is hard medicine for those convinced of the unassailable brilliance of their economic and political dogma.

When JP II stood against the Iraq War, we were warned of imminent danger from a formidable stockpile of weaponry and the “cakewalk” that awaited our forces of liberation. Six years later the immorality and insanity that informs the “doctrine of preemptive war” stand as a testament to the Pontiff who opposed it and a damning indictment of those who conceived it.

The intemperance of such language exemplifies a problem with "the Catholic Left" to which I alluded in my post: they treat as morally binding what's really a matter of opinion. For Catholics, the question whether the invasion of Iraq was just is a matter of opinion, not of doctrine; the pertinent doctrine is the formal criteria for just war stated in the CCC, and the opinion is whether the Iraq war satisfied those criteria. Even granted that, in 2002-3, the world's major intelligence agencies were wrong in their assessments of both the original threat and the ease of eliminating it, it does not follow that those who launched the war were "immoral" and "insane" for believing those assessments and acting accordingly. The question whether the war satisfies just-war criteria is an empirical question: people of good will who accept said criteria can still disagree about what, exactly, the relevant facts are and thus whether the war satisfies them. That is why, when JP2 expressed his strong view that the war was unjust, he was in no way exercising the prerogative of infallibility, and thus did not bind Catholics to agree with him—even if he was right.

I think I should acquaint you with (what I personally believe, anyway) is Kevin's own philosophy (however eloquent or, at times, noble I find this gentleman to be) as regarding the little matter touched above: just to let you know, Kevin is more so the resident Gore Vidal of W4 (if I might be bold enough to assert).

"There is an intuitive basis to think where the church should stand. If you love your neighbor, you won't be a tyrant, but will emulate Christ in imposing the least burden ("my yoke is light") on your neighbor as you possibly can. Socialized health care is an incredible financial burden on a lot of people, and decimates the economic rights of medical professionals. We can intuit from that that it is probably immoral in the eyes of God since the nature of God's rule over us is a light-handed one."

This is twisting our Lord's words. Better here would be "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me." When the state requires me to part with some of my surplus wealth to help the poor, it may appear a "heavy" burden. But the Lord would say it is not, as, done in the right spirit, it lifts one's heart to Him. Our Lord means to contrast such an obligation with the self-serving, oppressive ones imposed by the Pharises.

Fair enough, aristocles. I just wish that Catholic fire-breathing would be limited to matters on which there can be no legitimate diversity of opinion among Catholics. That of course applies as much to the Right as to the Left.

Even granted that, in 2002-3, the world's major intelligence agencies were wrong in their assessments of both the original threat and the ease of eliminating it, it does not follow that those who launched the war were "immoral" and "insane" for believing those assessments and acting accordingly.

Mike,
1)The issue of technical competence was raised in this thread and more importantly in CV. Do you think our military and intelligence experts looked at the evidence through through the eyes of faith or interest and ideology?

I ask knowing as you do too, that many people within our government doubted the assessments and wondered what harm another year of UN arms inspectors could do. Zinni was on the ground in Northern Iraq and said no and several Generals took "early retirement" rather than sign on. But please answer the question. Was there "empirical evidence" that qualified the Iraq War as Just and if so where did it go? How did the Pope get it right and the experts get it so disastrously wrong? The answer goes to the heart of CV.

2)Just War Doctrine is binding on the conscience of Catholics and one really had to strain to find loopholes in JWD before the invasion of Iraq, but how in God's name is it possible to do so in retrospect? Next time can we be strict constructionists when it comes to JWD?

3)I do not call any individuals immoral or insane. I did not even name them, but did say the war they launched was. What is the problem? I do not wish the architects of this war ill and certainly not the same fateS that befell thousands of Americans (and counting) and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis. But under no circumstances should they be allowed to exercise any power or arrange for another "preemptive war". If all they have to suffer is some "intemperate" rhetoric can't we agree they should be grateful?

..."the Catholic Left"...You guys really need to chill

I know some here feel the need to wear a self-identification badge; "non-interventionist libertarian with neo-conservative sympathies", "paleo-conservative with a passion for the Old Republic" etc., etc. I don't. If you must, refer to me as Kevin, Licensed Driver or along similar lines. Besides, the Catholic Left doesn't want me around either.

As one fisheater to another, stop flailing this red herring around the deck. Can you quote anyone who has said CV calls for an economic system, a 5 year Plan, or 12 point Program? CV is far more radical than any of that. The Church does not seek an administrative role, but instead reminds us technique must be subordinate to the Spirit and that how we arrange and conduct our economic affairs or statecraft are not mere matter matters of technical skill, or even simply moral matters, but are at their very root religious questions. Any polity or socio-economic structure that claims itself independent of God or ethically neutral in its processes is going to create untold suffering and inequities.

Well done Kevin, this line deserves its own block quote:

CV is far more radical than any of that

Although I am only a little over half-way through, I am already surprised at the remarkable narrowness of CV's interpretation by, what I must assume to be, well intentioned Catholics. This is not a local document, nor a conservative, nor a liberal document--and it is certainly not an American document. The energy being expended to fit the encyclical into a breathtaking variety of local associations is a bit like watching people try to pack their homes into their suitcases. There are serious philosophic difficulties with this task, even apart from questions of volume.

This error is being indulged in by plenty of political commentators. Weigle's behavior will serve here, since he has already been discussed. Weigle's notion of a compromise in an encyclical is utterly misconceived. This talk of a compromise is to be expected of a political man talking about politics, but it is odd to hear it from a religious man talking about religion. It is not in the nature of the Catholic Church, even in its advisory capacity, to speak of compromises in matters of Truth. Even in non-dogmatic instances, the motivation of any Church pronouncement is not in the direction of reaching an accord, it is in service to Truth, even when it cannot yet pronounce it dogmatically as such. Truly, in a document bearing Truth in its title, one would expect a bit more caution on the part of those disposed to this blunder. To suggest that Pope Benedict conceived CV as anything other than a coherent whole is very political of George Weigle.

But please answer the question. Was there "empirical evidence" that qualified the Iraq War as Just and if so where did it go?

I don't know—and most of us, including you, are in no position to know. I remember hearing in the summer of 2003, from both US Air Force sources I knew personally and the consensus of the Israeli media, that a huge convoy of trucks had been photographed by satellite making its way from Iraq into Syria during the days leading up to the invasion. I viewed the photograph, but of course could not verify its authenticity for myself. I do know that the Israeli military establishment remains convinced of the following: Saddam had a stash of biological and chemical weapons, but shipped them off to his B'aath-Party buddy in Damascus for storage so that he could (a) score a propaganda victory when we failed to find them, and (b) get them back if and when his men restored him to power. I've also read in several reputable sources that Saddam admitted, during the weeks before his execution in 2006, that he had wanted Teheran to BELIEVE he had WMDs so that he could deter Iran from restarting the bloody 1980-88 war. I find that very plausible; and if it's true, then his fatal mistake was to cause George W. Bush, as well as Ali Khamenei, to believe he had them.

The point is that there are many uncertainties in all this, and we're in no position to sort them out. From a moral standpoint, two other questions are more important: (1) whether Bush and Tony Blair's belief that there was a sufficient casus belli was sincere; and (2) whether the expenditure of blood and treasure required to put down the insurgencies and help Iraq become a stable, democratic state has been worth it. As to (1), if the answer is yes, then they were not behaving immorally even if their belief was objectively incorrect. As to (2), I'm inclined to answer yes, for geopolitical reasons I lack time to explore; but I wouldn't blame anybody for thinking that the answer is no.

In summary, then, I don't think it's certain either that the war has been just or that the war has been unjust, according to the binding criteria for just war laid out in the CCC. It is, as I keep saying, a matter of opinion on which reasonable and faithful Catholics can legitimately disagree.

Saddam had a stash of biological and chemical weapons, but shipped them off to his B'aath-Party buddy in Damascus for storage so that he could (a) score a propaganda victory when we failed to find them, and (b) get them back if and when his men restored him to power.

Michael,
Are you saying Saddam preferred to score a "propaganda victory" and gamble on an armed restoration rather than use these easy to hide, never to be found WMDS?

I've also read in several reputable sources that Saddam admitted, during the weeks before his execution in 2006, that he had wanted Teheran to BELIEVE he had WMDs so that he could deter Iran from restarting the bloody 1980-88 war.

No wonder if true, the Bush Administration sat on this info since it confirms there were no WMDS in Iraq or Syria. Something the UN inspectors said all along.

his fatal mistake was to cause George W. Bush, as well as Ali Khamenei, to believe he had them

Bush and Co. still could have waited for the inspection regime to finish it's work. Hell if there were still running around Iraq a lot more people would be alive, no?

As for the spiritual states of Bush and Blair, there is no point to our speculation. Other than to ask if you are aware if Blair has since his conversion changed any of his previously held public policy positions.

In summary, then, I don't think it's certain either that the war has been just or that the war has been unjust, according to the binding criteria for just war laid out in the CCC.

The historical record allows for no fudging;
tens of thousands dead, trillions wasted, the intolerable shame of Abu Grahib, the ethnic cleansing of Sunnis in Baghdad and the near complete destruction of the Church in Iraq, the destabilization of the Gulf and the removal of a key geopolitical bulwark against Iran.

Why? Because too many placed their faith in blurry photos, tales of yellow cake, Israeli press accounts, men like Chalabi, fantastic dreams of installing a Western friendly state in the Middle East by force and the windfall to spurt from Iraqi oil fields rather than heed the Vicar of Christ, JWD and sheer common sense.

You're totally missing the theological point of my previous comment. I did not assert that your opinion about the Iraq war is wrong; for all I know, you could be right, even though I have a different opinion. You, on the other hand, are asserting that my opinion—and that of many orthodox Catholics—is wrong, and you're unwilling to concede that we could be right. But I'm not interested in a potentially endless debate about whose opinion is right; nobody much cares what you or I think about the Iraq war, which is winding down anyhow. The important point is that, since empirical certainty is not justified in this case, your moral assessment needs to be more modestly offered, so that you can acknowledge what ought to be acknowledged: the question of the war's justice is "a matter of opinion on which reasonable and faithful Catholics can legitimately disagree."

If you refuse to acknowledge that, then you're committing the sort of error for which I criticized the Catholic Left in my post (whether or not you're actually a man of the Left): conflating what's morally optional to believe with what's morally obligatory to believe. Of course you have a lot of company. And that fact greatly concerns me, because such a misguided attitude needlessly poisons much Catholic discourse and exacerbates the already considerable polarization within the Church.

While fully understanding and accepting the theological distinctions your are drawing, Mike, I do not believe that the Iraq War, regardless of who may have broached the subject in this thread, affords a good illustration of those distinctions. If the first criterion of Just war doctrine is that the damage inflicted by an aggressor nation upon another nation, or the community of nations, must be grave, lasting, and certain, then Iraq cannot have fulfilled this requirement, inasmuch as the mere possession of WMD does not constitute a grave, lasting, and certain threat in the absence of specific and credible intelligence regarding intentions. In the case of Iraq, there was no such intelligence regarding an intention on the part of the Ba'athist regime to utilize such weapons, merely speculation, devoid of any evidentiary basis, concerning connections between Iraq and al Qaeda (call this one a Theater confusion), and the lunatic doctrine of the One-percenters, for whom an infinitesimally small probability that an hostile power might use WMD or pass them to terrorists, even in the absence of evidence of such intent, meant that we must certainly act to disarm that hostile power. Essentially, the one-percenter doctrine was an attempt to convert the absence of perfect epistemic certainty into a basis for certain practical action, a conjuration designed to throw prudence out the window. Hence, all of the intelligence agencies in the world could have been convinced that Iraq retained WMD - though it should be borne in mind that false flag and disinformation operations are part of the craft, as are catastrophic misjudgments owing to a paucity of sources - and that still would not have risen to the relevant standard. That a regime is unsavoury and may possess WMD is not a causus belli in and of itself.

That said, I'd much rather discuss the encyclical, which is more challenging to both sides of the political spectrum that either is conceding.

"the encyclical...is more challenging to both sides of the political spectrum that either is conceding"

Exactly, and this is partly what makes it such an important document: it's ticking off both the state-worshippers and the market-worshippers, which is a good thing. This fact also makes it extremely important to its interpretation that readers not fall for cherry-picking by ideologues from either aforementioned idolatry.

There's a lot I could say in response to your Iraq comments, but I also agree that discussing the encyclical would be more worth our time. I'm nearly done reading it and plan a post, probably for the weekend.

This is not a local document, nor a conservative, nor a liberal document--and it is certainly not an American document. The energy being expended to fit the encyclical into a breathtaking variety of local associations is a bit like watching people try to pack their homes into their suitcases.

Brett, thanks for the fine Chestertonian imagery! It recalls G.K.'s remark that the sane man tries to fit his head into the world, while the lunatic tries to fit the world inside his head. We're seeing folks vainly trying to compress Church teaching into their ideological hand bags and it is comical. In a way.

Mike, there is a larger theological point is there not? An examination of conscience requires us to ask; did we allow hubris, fear and revenge to trump humility, hope and trust? Did we pray and labor to think with the Church or did we pray that the Church would think like us? Stoking the embers of war is easy, quenching them is hard and within all of us is an inner tyrant anxious to set the world right and rearrange it according to our desires and beliefs. We are all required, policy makers in the corridors in power and the people in the pews alike, to grapple with these questions and facts. Only until we do, can we sincerely say; the war's justice is "a matter of opinion on which reasonable and faithful Catholics can legitimately disagree." Otherwise, "ooops, how was I to know" rings incredibly hollow.

Well Maximos, we look forward to our brothers in the Eastern Church weighing in.

did we allow hubris, fear and revenge to trump humility, hope and trust? Did we pray and labor to think with the Church or did we pray that the Church would think like us?

Kevin, even if you turned out to be correct that some, or many, of us allowed hubris and fear and revenge to trump humility, that would not of itself prove your stance on the Iraq war was correct. Nor would it begin to address Mike's point.

We are all required, policy makers in the corridors in power and the people in the pews alike, to grapple with these questions and facts. Only until we do, can we sincerely say; the war's justice is "a matter of opinion on which reasonable and faithful Catholics can legitimately disagree."

Do you mean that we must do this collectively, as a unified public act? That will never happen, nor has it ever happened. Or do you mean that each of us must ask these questions? If so, what makes you so all-fired certain that your argumentative adversaries have not already done so and still disagree with your take on the war? In fine, whether one reflects on and with grace rejects the tendencies toward fear and hubris does not automatically control whether one thinks the war was just or not. So Michael's point stands: reasonable men can disagree, and a conclusion about there being just cause cannot be turned into a doctrinal issue.

But that is still all beside the point: the Pope's encyclical is about other matters. If the example proposed is no example, then you go on to other examples, you don't refight a completely different war on the example. Good Golly, can't we discuss the encyclical without re-fighting Gulf II?

Here is what I want to know: What the Pope seems to be speaking of seems in some ways so foreign to any recognizable governmental way of doing anything that it begins to sound like a way of life for angels, not humans. Can we mere mortals expect to accomplish such changes without a catastrophic, apocalyptic and publicly miraculous change in people?

Take, for example, this passage:

The way humanity treats the environment influences the way it treats itself, and vice versa. This invites contemporary society to a serious review of its life-style, which, in many parts of the world, is prone to hedonism and consumerism, regardless of their harmful consequences[122]. What is needed is an effective shift in mentality which can lead to the adoption of new life-styles “in which the quest for truth, beauty, goodness and communion with others for the sake of common growth are the factors which determine consumer choices, savings and investments”[123].

If that refers to me and my use of a commuter van to transport my large family, (which gets about 80 passenger miles per gallon, by the way) then it seems to suggest that I need to (a) get a smaller car that does not have seats and seatbelts for everyone, defy the law, and get thrown in jail for repeated violations of a stupid law (as well as get my kids taken away from me for abuse - you have to see how in cities hate Catholic limos); or (b) sell my van and house, leave the city, and live vehicle free on a commune, even though I have no skills to contribute to such a life and could not maintain my family in food, much less food, clothing, shelter, and medical care.

That is to say, if we are in a warped society, we are most of us, in most ways trapped, unwillingly in that warped society, and merely pointing out that it is warped does not help get us out. If our crazy system screws up personal economy so that people must use half their salary for housing costs, does an admonition that contributing to this warped society is wrong mean we should no longer pay half our salary for housing? Where then shall we live? On the street?

If 95% of my lifestyle is forced on my by constraints not of my own making, what good is it to inform me that those constraints are leading me to a lifestyle that harms the environment?

Tony, I don't think that passage applies to you and your family if you are not engaging in consumerism and hedonism. Now one can ask if the encyclical will have any direct impact on those who refuse to curb their appetites.

Yes, or again, what does it mean to invites contemporary society to a serious review of its life-style ? Each of the persons who will take up that invitation are probably not the ones who need the serious review of their lifestyles, and those who need it aren't interested in the invitation. I am not society, and as much as I might wish to, I cannot take up a review of my neighbor's lifestyle with any gain. "Society" will never take up such an invitation except as many, many individuals do, but when only individuals alone do it, (and especially when only a few do it) their available choices are vanishingly insignificant in effect on the environment (both physical and social). And when the different, "thoughtful" choice has a vanishingly small benefit for the whole, and a huge deficit for you personally, it is hard to see how the individual is supposed to accept the deficit in an area that is not in itself a matter of sin.

Kevin, even if you turned out to be correct that some, or many, of us allowed hubris and fear and revenge to trump humility, that would not of itself prove your stance on the Iraq war was correct. Nor would it begin to address Mike's point.

Tony,
I was addressing Mike's point; that the war was "a matter of opinion on which reasonable and faithful Catholics can legitimately disagree."

Did those who took a position on a matter so grave do so by taking the right steps for the right reasons. Developing an interior predisposition to think with the Church and to see with the eyes of faith is a lifetime project. It is not enough to say; "well this is not a matter of doctrine so I'm free to apply my own standards and logic".

As for JPII's stance on Iraq, grisly events have borne him out, even though he lacked the technical competence and foresight of our military experts. How did that happen?

Can we mere mortals expect to accomplish such changes without a catastrophic, apocalyptic and publicly miraculous change in people?

The revolution of the heart starts one person at a time. B16 is reminding us individually;

"[T]ruth is not something that we produce; it is always found, or better, received.”...[c]harity in truth ... is the principal driving force behind the authentic development of every person and of all humanity... In Christ, charity in truth becomes the Face of his Person."

If we live in Truth, instead of self-interest, do you doubt the changes in our personal lives will not be reflected throughout society and in our institutions?

That is to say, if we are in a warped society, we are most of us, in most ways trapped, unwillingly in that warped society, and merely pointing out that it is warped does not help get us out.

The feeling of being trapped, isolated and alienated are the hallmarks of modernity. We live in dread that we really are alone and abandoned in the face of impersonal, deterministic forces. B16's answer is always the same; turn to the Person of Christ. Daily Mass as much as possible, and practicing the solidarity he outlines in CV are antidotes to the claustrophobia and sense of captivity you aptly describe.

If 95% of my lifestyle is forced on my by constraints not of my own making, what good is it to inform me that those constraints are leading me to a lifestyle that harms the environment?

Every Catholic living in the First World should be pondering that tonight. Our enslavement may in many ways have been foisted upon us, but you haven't been paying attention if you think B16 has neglected to point the way to liberation.

A theme of his is that the path to true freedom is found in making a gift of ourselves to others. By beginning to do so in small ways, such as in the workplace, one can feel the chains loosen ever so slightly. Practicing communion in competitive environments by being less self-aggrandizing and more collaborative may seem mundane until one tries it.

I hope to form a reading group within my parish, since we're being asked to live in opposition to our natural instinct for greed and self-sufficiency. Sustaining and be sustained by others is vital. And doesn't it seem Providential that this encyclical came at this exact moment in history?

"what does it mean to invites contemporary society to a serious review of its life-style ? Each of the persons who will take up that invitation are probably not the ones who need the serious review of their lifestyles, and those who need it aren't interested in the invitation."

I don't think this is true. There are many people who, perhaps through no fault of their own, have never really considered these issues. To them this can be a sort of wake-up call. It can have the same type of effect that reading Wendell Berry or Dreher's Crunchy Cons has had on many, that is, it can act as a starting point for folks to begin contemplating "lifestyle" matters. And the more people that begin thinking about such things, the better. Successful efforts in this direction will have to be grassroots rather than top-down.

If we live in Truth, instead of self-interest, do you doubt the changes in our personal lives will not be reflected throughout society and in our institutions?
We may be leaven not primarily for one order but for the one succeeding it.

Post a comment

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If
your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same
comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.

Reverse the order of the digits in 31, then type the answer using letters instead of numbers, all lower case. (required):